Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:49:21 uk.net.news.config
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}

In article
"jane" writes:

A lottie subgroup would probably be a very low volume group, and most
of the posts would probably get crossposted to urg in any case, to
catch folk who didn't sub to the new group.

This is something that should be addressed in the group's charter, if it
is created:

It is covered in the group's charter. This is one of those odd one's. I
was the proponent for the urg charter change and it happened. So
theoretically you have to argue with me and all of the people that that
voted for that. Or disagree.

cross-posts to the sub-group AND the parent group ought to be
banned very specifically. (Says he, who regularly suffers postings from
idiots who think their chit-chat about mobile telephony is welcome in
uk.telecom as well as in uk.telecom.mobile.)

In this case I think you are wrong. I think people in urg should be
able to see discussion in unnc without having to see the shit that unnc
currently contains.

[Brian *may* say that people who want to talk about a new group should
have to read al of unnc -- if so I think Brian should think again]

You might even want to consider a charter change to the parent group, if
the subgroup IS created, which also prohibits such cross-posts.
Something on-topic in a sub-group is rarely appropriate to the parent:
after all, the latter has cast off its off-spring to make its own way in
the world.

Ummm, Brian, I did the re-charter for urg a while back. I will be
taking some care about this and I don't think you have been thinking.
Sorry, but that is my opinion

--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting